7 Forgetting Prakrit sakkaya vānī buhaana bhāvaï pāua rasa ko mamma na pāvaï | desila vayanā saba jana miṭṭhā teṃ taisana jaṃpaü avahaṭṭhā || —Vidyāpati, Vine of Glory (Kīrtilatā)1 SUMMARY The previous chapters have examined Prakrit’s position in the language order of India. I argued that Prakrit was not the endless stream of popular language: it referred to a specific set of language practices the beginnings of which we can locate, more or less, to the first century ce. It was around this time that a new kind of textuality emerged—kāvya or kavva—which was self-consciously expressive, in which the way something was said mattered just as much as what was said. This was a centuries-long process rather than a single historical event, and the impossibility of producing a precise time line has frustrated attempts to find a single “beginning” for the massive and diverse tradition of kāvya. Nevertheless, as chapters 2 and 3 have argued, the language practices of the Sātavāhana court had an enormous impact on the history of kāvya and on the shape of the classical lan- guage order. The inscriptions of the Sātavāhanas show that they created a language of power and were subsequently engaged in a long contest over what languages in particular would fulfill that role. They consistently, although not without -ex ception, represented themselves in an expressive Middle Indic, and this language defined their cultural politics for centuries, even after their empire came to an end. The literarization of political discourse we see in the inscriptions of the Sātavāhana era is contemporaneous with the emergence of a literary culture or- ganized around the production and appreciation of kāvya. Although the connec- tions between the two spheres remain elusive, the preferential use of one variety of Middle Indic in political discourse corresponds to the preferential use of another variety, Prakrit, in literary discourse. The Sātavāhana court had a major role in 169 170 chapter 7 establishing Prakrit as the language of this new type of literature, at least within the macroregion of the “Southern Path” that they laid claim to. And Prakrit, in turn, helped to establish kāvya, or kavva, as an independent domain of language use by demarcating it from learned discourse in other languages. Of course, we typically think of Sanskrit as the preeminent language of kāvya, even in its earliest days. I maintain, however, that we should think of Sanskrit as entering a discursive sphere that was already constituted by practices in other languages, foremost among them Prakrit. As a result of its entry into this new sphere, it was both for the first time in its already-long history defined as “Sanskrit” in opposition to Prakrit and trans- formed into a language of expressive literature that was not necessarily linked to a particular religious tradition—a language, in other words, like Prakrit. My argument in chapters 2 and 3 is that the “literarization” of various forms of discourse that took place around the first centuryce —a process that many schol- ars have noticed, although Sheldon Pollock is one of the few to have named it and suggested an explanation for it—is inextricable from their “Prakritization.” I do not mean that preexisting discourses were “translated” into Prakrit. On the con- trary: the forms of textuality that emerged in this period were largely Prakrit forms to begin with. When Bhadrabāhu composes versified notes to the Jain canon, he uses Prakrit gāthās, and he is one of the first in the Jain tradition to do so. When Nāgārjuna, who is reputed to have enjoyed the patronage of the Sātavāhanas, com- poses Buddhist philosophical works in Sanskrit āryās, he is using a verse form that originated in Prakrit literature. And above all, it is Prakrit literature that de- fines a large part—although certainly not the whole—of what it means for kavva/ kāvya to be “courtly” literature: not simply produced at the court, but embodying a refined courtly aesthetic and operating through indirection, obliquity, and sug- gestion. The positive features of Prakrit literature—what it meant, on the level of phonemes, verse forms, and compositional forms, for a text to be a Prakrit text— have been explored in chapter 4. Seven Centuries, a product of the Sātavāhana court, is rightly seen as one of the foundational texts of this literary tradition. I argued in chapter 3 that previ- ously overlooked Jain texts like Pālitta’s Taraṅgavatī are just as critical for un- derstanding its history. The texts that survive are sufficient to establish that Jain authors made contributions to the burgeoning literary culture of the early cen- turies ce that were no less significant than the cultivation of Sanskrit literary forms by Buddhist authors such as Aśvaghoṣa and Kumāralāta. And although these texts are often shunted off into a separate tradition of “Jain Prakrit” or “Jain Māhārāṣṭrī,” we would do better to think of a wider field of textuality that ac- commodates them alongside their Sanskrit and Prakrit intertexts. In chapter 6, against the common conception that views Jain Prakrit as an exception to the grammatical norms of Prakrit, I suggested that Jain texts may actually have been the grammatical norm. Forgetting Prakrit 171 The dichotomy of Sanskrit and Prakrit is one of the focal points of chapter 5, which surveys the various ways in which Prakrit was figured. I argue there that the representations of Prakrit should be seen as schemas, in the technical sense that they bring a variety of literary language practices to order by determining their relative position in an overarching system of representations. Sanskrit and Prakrit, which come to be used as names of complementary language practices at around the same time, are figured as identical but opposite, and co-constitutive of the whole of textuality. These representations determine Prakrit as a completely different kind of language than we are used to. It is like Sanskrit, in that it is ef- fectively transregional, the primary language of a tradition of sophisticated and courtly literature, and cultivated by Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains alike; it is never- theless regional in some significant sense, the language in which low and unedu- cated people are represented as speaking, and relatively circumscribed and minor in relation to Sanskrit. But this very minority makes it a useful indicator of the structures in which it is embedded: Prakrit poets, for example, almost always re- flect on their choice of language in a way that Sanskrit poets rarely do. And insofar as it reveals the structures on which literary languages depend for their being and for their being-known—regimes of representation, of systematic knowledge, of discipline and practice—Prakrit gives us a crucial starting point for thinking about literary languages in general, in India and elsewhere. Chapter 6 examines some of the forms of systematic knowledge that consti- tuted Prakrit in greater conceptual and historical detail. Prakrit grammar is often treated as though it were an unsophisticated adaptation of Sanskrit grammar, but such an approach overlooks the important cultural work that Prakrit grammar performed, which was qualitatively different from the work of Sanskrit grammar. I offer a reading of the organizing concepts of Prakrit grammar and lexicography, and to a lesser extent Prakrit metrics, as the instruments of an unprecedented project of large-scale comparison between language practices. These forms of knowledge help us to understand what it meant for Prakrit to be “regional.” It is the remainder of this comparison, but also its principal object; the regional is what knowledge of Prakrit is really knowledge of. With the first fully articulated theory of the regional in India, Prakrit discourses give regional-language discourses a way of understanding themselves in relation to Sanskrit, as we have seen in the case of the earliest grammars of Kannada and Telugu. REORDERING LANGUAGE “Those who know how to recite Prakrit poetry,” says a verse that appears for the first time around the twelfth century, “are as rare as those who know how to make garlands of kubja flowers, or how to pacify a woman’s wrath.”2 This verse harkens back to Prakrit’s “declaration of independence” (W2, discussed in chapter 3) about 172 chapter 7 a thousand years prior, but at the same time registers a new sense of Prakrit’s rar- ity: not just of the practice of reciting it, but of the knowledge that skilled recitation depends on. This chapter will examine the transformations that Prakrit underwent that might underlie this sense of rarity. For something must have changed. Prakrit was an essential component of literary culture in the first millennium, with a cor- pus of texts that poets actively contributed to and that theorists actively engaged with. Over the course of the second millennium, however, textual production in Prakrit seems to decrease, the language becomes increasingly confined to Jain scholars, and generally Prakrit was much less important for thinking about the literary than it had been previously. A contraction in three areas—textual production in the language, its public, and its significance—appears to diagnose a “decline.” But that is not exactly the story I want to tell in this chapter. Decline narratives are always susceptible to a number of criticisms. One is their evidentiary basis. Especially in the case of Prakrit literary practices, with so many texts lost and quite a few still awaiting publication, it might seem imprudent and arbitrary to compare what is known of one period to what is known of another. A second criticism relates to inter- pretation. Does Rāma pāṇivāda’s production of two long poems in Prakrit in the early eighteenth century constitute an exception to a general pattern of decline, for example, or should it prevent us from speaking of decline in the first place? And how in principle should we decide between these options? These questions involve a third criticism, which is teleology.